I’m not sure if this is a pun or whether you have been led to believe that the word testament is derived from the action you state? The additional biblical meaning coming from a confusion of the two meanings of Greek diatheke, which meant both “covenant, dispensation” and “will, testament”.
In his article, ‘A “WITNESS” AND A “TESTICLE”? A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE LATIN WORD “TESTIS”’ (Carmenta, Sep 26, 2014.), Harvard scholar Larry Myer gives the following philological analysis, based largely on the works of the Princeton classicist, Joshua Katz:
‘Students of Latin are often struck by the fact that the same Latin word testis meant both a “witness” and a “testicle.” In fact, ancient Roman writers, like Plautus, sometimes played with this double meaning. Surprisingly, no scholar had satisfactorily accounted for the origin of this puzzling ambiguity until 1998, when the Princeton Classicist Joshua Katz published his article “Testimonia Ritus Italici: Male Genitalia, Solemn Declarations, and a New Latin Sound Law” in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.
‘According to Katz (and others before him) the original Indo-European form of testis was trito-sth2-i meaning “a third person standing,” i.e. a third person standing by in order to witness some event (sth2, the second part of the IE form, is related to the Latin word sto, stare to stand). So testis originally meant a “witness.” But how did it come to mean “testicle” as well? In order to answer this question, Katz begins by citing Near Eastern examples of men holding someone’s genitals while they swear an oath. In one famous instance from the Hebrew Bible, Jacob instructs his son Joseph…’
Well, not really. That though the words are related, from the link:
There is a huge gulf between the nomadic Hebrew tribes of the Bronze Age and ancient Rome, and one cannot take a vague allusion in the Hebrew Bible and apply it to a civilization a millennium and more than a thousand miles distant.
The myth may have arisen in the minds of medieval readers. A number of ancient Roman writers engaged in wordplay and puns about male genitalia and testimony—the similarity between the words was not lost on them—and medieval readers may also have conflated the biblical readings with Roman practice. In any case, it’s not the origin of the Latin or English word.
It’s not that simple. Some parts apply to some (Leviticus to the Levites for example), some only to the Jews, some apply to all, and both the Old Covenant and New Covenant apply now, and you get to pick which one you like. The Old is a covenant of law: if you want to be righteous, this is what you must do, all the time, without breaking a single one, ever. The New is a covenant of grace based on faith in what Christ accomplished. Actually the Old is a covenant of grace as well, because the standard is so high it is unattainable, to which the correct response is “God I cannot do this on my own; I need your help”, thus opening the door to grace.
The Bible isn’t designed to be cherrypicked for short soundbites. It just doesn’t work that way. It needs reading carefully and thoughtfully, and with the understanding that as God’s word to all mankind from initial creation to final redemption, not all of it will apply to everyone at any given time; there will be stuff that you can understand and apply, and stuff you can’t.
It also needs reading within the context of a relationship with God. If you haven’t got that then the Bible is fairly pointless. Sure, you can pick out the Ten Commandments and base some local laws on that, but we have better ways of constructing workable legal systems these days.
The Old Testament only applies when it’s convenient
And, calling it a “testament” when no one’s swearing to its veracity on their soveriegn’s/leader’s/dad’s balls… Is just lazy.
edit
I’m not sure if this is a pun or whether you have been led to believe that the word testament is derived from the action you state? The additional biblical meaning coming from a confusion of the two meanings of Greek diatheke, which meant both “covenant, dispensation” and “will, testament”.
In his article, ‘A “WITNESS” AND A “TESTICLE”? A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE LATIN WORD “TESTIS”’ (Carmenta, Sep 26, 2014.), Harvard scholar Larry Myer gives the following philological analysis, based largely on the works of the Princeton classicist, Joshua Katz:
‘Students of Latin are often struck by the fact that the same Latin word testis meant both a “witness” and a “testicle.” In fact, ancient Roman writers, like Plautus, sometimes played with this double meaning. Surprisingly, no scholar had satisfactorily accounted for the origin of this puzzling ambiguity until 1998, when the Princeton Classicist Joshua Katz published his article “Testimonia Ritus Italici: Male Genitalia, Solemn Declarations, and a New Latin Sound Law” in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.
‘According to Katz (and others before him) the original Indo-European form of testis was trito-sth2-i meaning “a third person standing,” i.e. a third person standing by in order to witness some event (sth2, the second part of the IE form, is related to the Latin word sto, stare to stand). So testis originally meant a “witness.” But how did it come to mean “testicle” as well? In order to answer this question, Katz begins by citing Near Eastern examples of men holding someone’s genitals while they swear an oath. In one famous instance from the Hebrew Bible, Jacob instructs his son Joseph…’
https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-swe1.htm
You replied to second my point?
Well, not really. That though the words are related, from the link:
https://www.wordorigins.org/big-list-entries/testify
It’s not that simple. Some parts apply to some (Leviticus to the Levites for example), some only to the Jews, some apply to all, and both the Old Covenant and New Covenant apply now, and you get to pick which one you like. The Old is a covenant of law: if you want to be righteous, this is what you must do, all the time, without breaking a single one, ever. The New is a covenant of grace based on faith in what Christ accomplished. Actually the Old is a covenant of grace as well, because the standard is so high it is unattainable, to which the correct response is “God I cannot do this on my own; I need your help”, thus opening the door to grace.
The Bible isn’t designed to be cherrypicked for short soundbites. It just doesn’t work that way. It needs reading carefully and thoughtfully, and with the understanding that as God’s word to all mankind from initial creation to final redemption, not all of it will apply to everyone at any given time; there will be stuff that you can understand and apply, and stuff you can’t.
It also needs reading within the context of a relationship with God. If you haven’t got that then the Bible is fairly pointless. Sure, you can pick out the Ten Commandments and base some local laws on that, but we have better ways of constructing workable legal systems these days.